Kill All the Terrorists?

The violence we employ to defend civilization feeds the very forces that imperil it.

The murderous attack earlier this month in Nice, France, prompted Jay Nordlinger, senior editor at the ostensibly conservative National Review, to propose a new approach to dealing with terrorism. His strategy is simplicity itself: “you have to kill these jihadists, and kill them, and kill them, until they simply tire of being killed and leave civilization alone.”

If by “civilization” Nordlinger is referring to Europe and the United States, then his proposal comes a couple of centuries too late. In their relations with the non-West—the peoples of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East—Western powers have rarely demonstrated a desire to be left alone. They have instead sought to subjugate and exploit populations classified as inferior. In pursuit of their objectives, they have relied not on suasion but on violence and intimidation.

To be sure, present-day Europeans and Americans bear no responsibility for the sins that their forbears committed in civilization’s name. Neither, however, should they indulge in the pretense that hostility toward the West today springs out of nowhere. History resists whitewashing. Although the tide of Western imperialism may have receded, it left behind a stain that time has yet to eradicate.

This describes the essence of the strategic dilemma that Europeans and Americans confront today. Having belatedly discovered the virtues of peaceful coexistence, Western nations confront adversaries who have long memories and a hunger for payback. Yesterday’s instigators have become today’s targets and cry foul. Now that we have all that we want, they say, please go away.

Yet as attacks inflicted upon the West pile up—Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino—it becomes apparent that violent jihadists won’t be going away anytime soon. As a consequence, support for a keep-killing-until-they-quit approach is gaining momentum. Nordlinger is not alone in calling for escalation. Donald Trump has demanded a declaration of war against ISIS. His running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, proposes to “defeat this enemy of civilization at its source.” Bloodlust is on the rise.

Such sentiments feed off the populist mood increasingly evident not only in Europe but also in the United States. An abiding characteristic of populism is a belief in simple solutions to complex problems. To purify the temple, throw out the moneylenders. To restore social harmony, expel all those who are different. To ensure peace, eliminate with prejudice all those suspected of posing a threat.

The problems with this line of thought are legion. For starters, it assumes an ability to distinguish between guilty and innocent—between violent jihadists at home and abroad and the rest of the planet’s 1.6 billion Muslims.

Implicit in Nordlinger’s formulation is the suggestion that present circumstances may have rendered such distinctions unnecessary, with anyone deemed at odds with “civilization” eligible for extermination. Note that in the case of Nice, few Western observers waited for investigators to identify the motive behind the attack, the perpetrator’s Tunisian origins’ being sufficient to incorporate the incident into the narrative of radical-Islamist violence directed against the West as a whole. It’s the equivalent of assuming that any shooting of a black male by any police officer is necessarily the direct result of racism.

Even more fundamentally, Nordlinger’s proposal collides with this further problem: Why hasn’t the Western killing perpetrated thus far yielded signs of progress? Although the fact garners only passing attention among Europeans and Americans, the number of Westerners killed by terrorists pales in comparison to the body count racked up in recent years by the United States and its allies in the Islamic world. While estimates of the overall death toll range widely, one reputable 2015 study calculated that a staggering 1.3 million Muslims have died due to violence since 9/11—jihadists and suspected jihadists along with mere bystanders categorized as collateral casualties. Yet no evidence exists to show that this vast bloodletting has diminished the threat.

By implication, our work has just begun, with the counter-jihad now underway destined to last for years, if not decades. In the meantime, the agents of Western civilization, armed to the teeth with high-tech weaponry and justified by self-serving arguments, will presumably have to kill millions more.

When the day of victory finally arrives, we may wonder what will then remain of the values we are ostensibly defending.

The West today finds itself caught in a paradox of its own making: Violence employed by prior generations claiming to represent civilization has elicited a violent response; the violence we employ today to defend that civilization actually feeds the very forces that imperil it.

Andrew J. Bacevich, professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University, is author, most recently, of America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History.

“The number of Westerners killed by terrorists pales in comparison to the body count racked up in recent years by the United States and its allies in the Islamic world.”

Both also pales in comparison to the number of Muslims murdered by ISIS, Al-Qaeda are their cohorts in the Islamic world. They are not fighting to right past colonial wrongs (even if they will readily use anti-colonial language for propaganda purposes), they are in a vicious civil war to grab power within the Islamic world, which lacks legitimate or effective governance, just as, say, the Tamil Tigers, Lord’s Resistance Army or FARC did in their own context.

If governments presumably unconstrained by Western pusillanimity like Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Pakistan and the like are unable to curb terror, what makes us believe we will do any better?

Certainly not due to a technological edge. It can only work when we know where to direct it, and if we did, then there would be no problem neutralizing terrorism before it got the opportunity to strike.

The best thing we can do is nurture peaceful and democratic alternatives, by assisting fledgling ones like Tunisia, nudging governments that can be reformed like Jordan or Lebanon, and nurturing civil society in places where the regime in place is too entrenched so there is an alternative when it falls, unlike the chaos in Libya.

We should also stop appeasing putative allies like Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, and take more active steps to wean ourselves of the dependency on oil that finances extremism.

Do not agree with him. Jihadi terrorism is a tool used by West for interventions-i.e. Afghanistan Mujahideen were not a one off.
But they are really allies of convenience. When for instance US turned on ISIS because it went after the Kurds, ISIS turned on West and its other former friends (i.e. Turks).

US still pandering to other jihadis, since after all who else cares to be the proxy warriors in interventions? Only the Jihadi nutters.

We are definitely post-Christian in our view of the acceptability of requirements for endless killing. However, I don’t believe we are really post-colonial, or post-imperial, even if the techniques have changed. The divide and conquer borders of the Sykes-Picot satrapy arrangement are still being maintained, barely, through violence, covert actions, coups and wars, and we favor one stop shopping from “friendly” dictators rather than a messy democracy that first pays attention to their own peoples’ needs, rather than ours.

Nor does populism have to be coincident with “simple” answers that aren’t – like the complicated logistics and predictably chaotic consequences of endless industrial killing. There might be a “simpler” and more realistic answer properly informed populism armed with the truth could enable – that is, truly the end of imperial “full spectrum” ambition and the concentration on the plight of our own people and building infrastructure for our communities at home.

While I agree with the basic thrust of the argument, I’d like to point out that the 1.3 million Muslim deaths since 9/11 have little do with the sins of our forebears. They have much more to do with our own sins.

Nordlinger and his crew keep wanting to equate the terrorists with the Nazis and Japanese of WWII. They so wish there was some place they could bomb into oblivion and the war would be won.

Alas, the only sure fire way to eliminate Islamic terrorism in a country is to eliminate Muslims in a country. Even the moderate Muslims’ offspring are subject to being radicalized. Well, to uproot and deport all the Muslims of any western country would be a humanitarian crisis and its not going to happen in this day and age. What we can do however is prevent anymore Muslims from migrating into the country. Please save the “that’s not who we are” responses. We have been selective on who can immigrate in the past. And that doesn’t mean we should not treat Muslims already here any different than everyone else. They have the rights of full citizens, if they are not illegal immigrants. If they are illegal, its a no-brainer. Deport them.

+10 and I’d go further. The leadership class in the U.S. and Europe is carefully nurturing anti-Muslim sentiments among the general population so that, when the oil available through fracking runs low and the only way we can keep our fossil-fuel-intensive lifestyle going is to outright invade and conquer those countries that still have some oil, recruitment of soldiers to do the invading and conquering will not be scarce.

“Well, when it comes to Muslims and Westerners, the answer is: No, we can’t.

“So, deal with it. When we get in each other’s faces, we get on each other’s nerves. It’s time to get out of each other’s faces. Westerners and Muslims don’t agree on the basics of social order and don’t want to live under the same rules. That shouldn’t be a problem because that’s what separate countries are for. We should stop occupying their countries and stop letting them move to ours.”

It might be a “simplistic” solution, but no one else has offered one with any better prospect of success.

“Look at the violence that we employ killing rats! That doesn’t results in us being swarmed by rats- it means we have fewer rats.”

During the first half of the twentieth century, another people were compared to vermin, with the frustration eventually leading to acceptance of the same attempted final solution, extermination of the rats.

Human beings are not vermin, unless we all are. There is a satanic entity that makes that accusation.

“In their relations with the non-West—the peoples of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East—Western powers have rarely demonstrated a desire to be left alone. They have instead sought to subjugate and exploit populations classified as inferior. In pursuit of their objectives, they have relied not on suasion but on violence and intimidation.”

In earlier times Western armies could travel half-way around the world, inflict their overwhelming violence on helpless “gooks, coolies, wogs, etc.” – but then return home to relative safety.

The enraged families and friends of the victims of Western armies were largely unable to reach the home countries of the Western armies for the purpose of carrying out acts of vengeance.

However, in the more recent era of rapid transportation, widespread immigration, and virtually open borders, vengeance and pay-back are not only possible, but assured.

I agree with Andrew Bacevich: If we stop going to their countries and killing them, they’ll stop coming to our countries and killing us.

“In their relations with the non-West—the peoples of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East—Western powers have rarely demonstrated a desire to be left alone. They have instead sought to subjugate and exploit populations classified as inferior. In pursuit of their objectives, they have relied not on suasion but on violence and intimidation.”

If one adds the list the majority of indigenous peoples of the US and EU then the Trump and Sanders supporters do, indeed, have something in common with the jihadi; they, like the brown people of the world have been feeling the iron heel of the cultural oppressors rather acutely lately.

“An abiding characteristic of populism is a belief in simple solutions to complex problems.”

Earth to Bacevich, earth to Bacevich! The People don’t do policy papers. When the governing class has so screwed things up that the People have to step in and dispense their own brand of rough justice the governing class has failed spectacularly.

Our only job now is to be sure the revolution does not get out of hand.

@Johann. I totally agree. I don’t understand why it is inhumane to stop Muslim immigration, but acceptable to bomb them in their own countries. I suppose if we’re accused of discrimination, we can stop all immigration.

I hope Trump is not serious about bombing ISIS. He rightly condemns the war in Iraq, but to defeat ISIS we will need to occupy Iraq and Syria for a generation.

Thank you, excellent article. ISIS and refugees are blow-back for the Iraq war.

Now that we are here, what are the incremental steps needed to taper down this violence? Sadly, most of the actors don’t seem to have any plans in that direction, quite the opposite in some cases. Doesn’t forebode well for the future.

The West continues to hector people in Africa, Asia, etc. in VERY SERIOUS ways – not just with embargoes (Iran, Cuba), not just with drone attacks (many places), but with coups and revolutions that arouse radicalization as the only means of resisting them.

Andrew Bacevich has been a wise man in a nation of idiot commentators. Here, though, he stumbles a bit. (1) The west has receded from imperialism? What was the prime motive of the second Iraq invasion? Oil and Israel. Certainly not WMD, even if they had existed. (2) There has been a trend lately in comments on the US election and on Brexit to assume that nationalism and populism are bad things (the same has always been true of Isolationism). These are rhetorical moves to sway conversations away from certain topics. How about instead: “nationalism = patriotism”, “populism” = “equal rights and opportunity” and “Isolationism” = “foreign policy for the benefit of one’s own community”.

I usually agree with Bacevich but in this article, he is making the same mistake made by so many people in the West – that everything that happens in the world is really just about you guys, your actions, and reactions to your actions. In this worldview, Third World people like Muslims have no internal agency and merely react to Western actions.

Even if the West did not exist, Muslims would still be attacking non-Muslims, waging jihad, and terrorizing people all over the world like the Koran tells them to do. That’s what they did for 450 years before the First Crusade, long before there was a “West”, long before there was an America, and long before the petro-economy.

In Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State is enslaving and selling little Yazidi girls on the Internet. Is this also a defensive reaction to Western imperialism?

Out of 56 Islamic countries in the world, all but two or three have “Jim Crow” style laws that discriminate brutally against their own non-Muslim citizens. Is this apartheid a reaction to Western imperialism?

I have really gotten tired of this “It’s all about meeeee” Western narcissism.

Your commentary is very good, but you begin with the premise that our governments being believable in matters of ‘terrorsm’, when A) NATO has a long history of using it as a tool to move public opinion, beginning with Gladio, and b) nobody who bothers to look at the evidence wrt 9/11 comes to any other conclusion than ‘False Flag’.

Ditto Sandy Hook, nobody died at Sandy Hook, or many of the other ‘horrible massacres’ our government has used to push its agendas.

Lazy fools, or Complicit In Treason? There is not other choice, an opinion otherwise is merely choosing to believe the government.

And very wrong in the light of careful, objective, scientific evidence in the case of 9/11 and Sandy Hook.

My respect for Mr. Bacevich is not diminished despite this bit of conventional non-wisdom.

Subverted by Neocon Israel-firsters (essentially Israeli agents) and AIPAC’s purchase of Congress, US policy — defense policy (Wolfowitz Doctrine: full-spectrum dominance) and Mideast foreign policy (the Oded Yinon plan: destabilization and regime change in the Mideast) — has been repurposed to serve Israeli interests. Thus we witness the US wars against the Islamic Mideast,… essentially wars to make the world safe for Israel, which have spawned the blowback we experience as Islamic terrorism.

While those policies and the wars they spawn provide the provocation for the current plague of jihad-ism, its source is entirely separate. It’s source is Saudi-sponsored and funded Wahhabism, born in KSA and spread throughout the Islamic world by Saudi-funded madrasas.

The Neocons and their Israel masters want everyone to parrot the bullshjt notion that Iran is “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism”, so that maybe, just maybe, they can hoodwink their US poodle into bombing Iran back to the stone age like they did Iraq. However, the truth is the Saudis are the well-spring of Islamic terrorism. Prodigious oil profits, armaments profits, and a policy of non-belligerence toward Israel however, make it an inconvenient truth, a truth to be set aside in favor of vastly more profitable non-truths.

Want to solve the terrorism problem? Acknowledge the actual source. Then conquer Saudi Arabia, dispose of the Wahhabi clerical class, and replace them with a kinder and gentler strain of Islam, of which there are many.

Often the apparent “complexity” of a problem arises because the so-called “facts” about the matter in question are actually Kool-Aid saturated crapola. Real facts, reality-based facts, will often “simplify” an issue made apparently — but not really — insuperable by Kool-Aid-induced “complexity”.

I’m a great admirer of Bacevich, and fundamentally agree we have few interests in the Middle East vital enough to justify intervention, but some of what has been happening meet the definition of “acts of war.”

It’s not clear to me what Bacevich suggests we do. Ending immigration might be a start.

Want to solve the terrorism problem? Acknowledge the actual source. Then conquer Saudi Arabia, dispose of the Wahhabi clerical class, and replace them with a kinder and gentler strain of Islam, of which there are many.

Sorry, Jeff–this is absurd lunacy. Sure, I’d love to see a moderate government in the KSA. But if you thought the pacification of Iraq was difficult, just imagine how difficult the pacification of the KSA would be…and if you think invading Muslim lands was provocative, how about infidel troops in Mecca and Medina? No, this insane.

But we could start by ending all military trade and aid with the KSA and cut off our trade. Not that that would hurt them, I’m sure China would eagerly step in. But it might make us feel good.

To be brutally honest, terrorism as horrible as it is, is not an existential problem. It’s far less of a problem than many other things in this country.

What can we do about it? I think there are many steps we can and should take to reduce the threat. Immigration policy reform and foreign policy changes are two great starts. But throwing gasoline on the fire by invading yet another country in the ME is hardly the answer.

As productive as the discussion as to what the meaning of “is” is. There are thousands whom wish death to non-believers. Pet the snake if you wish, no doubt the snake will respond in kind. Enjoy your short life.